On Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:30:05 PM UTC-5, Wil Cooley wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2014 5:53 AM, "jcbollinger" > wrote:
>
> > No new parameter, but you could also repackage your RPM so that it
> handles the permissions of /tmp itself.
>
> I suspect that would conflict with the package that alre
On Aug 21, 2014 5:53 AM, "jcbollinger" wrote:
> No new parameter, but you could also repackage your RPM so that it
handles the permissions of /tmp itself.
I suspect that would conflict with the package that already owns /tmp
("basefiles" or whatever it's called).
It might be possible to remount
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:10:18 AM UTC-5, Stefan Wiederoder wrote:
>
> that´s the pattern I´m already using for a few other things, I was hoping
> there´s a cool new parameter to trigger a require only if necessary.
>
No new parameter, but you could also repackage your RPM so that it hand
that´s the pattern I´m already using for a few other things, I was hoping
there´s a cool new parameter to trigger a require only if necessary.
thanks for your answer Flamarion!
bye
,
Stefan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To u
Inside of your lib/facter directory you could write a facter for check if
package is already installed and use a top scope variable provide by facter
to do an if in your class for test it.
If the package is installed (true) don't do anything else if (false)
install it else {}.
Sorry for my bad En
